The jurors took literally almost day just bickering and arguing over whether the boy was guilty or not. In act two the jurors were starting to change their mind about their vote on whether or not the boy was guilty or not. That is where they started to kind of come to an agreement. From the beginning of act one juror number eight was always on the boys side, and the other guys always questioned why he thought the boy was innocent. Juror number eight did not have a reason he said “ he’s nineteen years old”.
Family The 3rd Juror mention how disrespectful was his kid, and how his kid even hit him once; some other members of the jury mention how this young boy was always getting hit by his father and they said that the situation was the motive of the murder. Juror number 3 was the last one in changing his vote not because he wasn’t sure, but he wants to punish this kid making a direct assimilation that this kid is like his and need to be punished. Characters: • 1st Juror: he acts as a foreman and he is responsible to maintain the order in the room and keep everyone else in track. This is not too hard for him because he is a football coach. • 2nd Juror: this actor doesn’t participate too much in the play, and he is shyer than the rest of the group.
As the jury entered into the jury room, the air inside the room was hot, which can also be symbolic to the intensity of the case. In the beginning of the jury room discussion, the members are preoccupied with their own life, for some it was just a duty to do anyway without understanding the depth of the case. According to the law, the vote of the jury should be twelve to nothing either way to prove the boy guilty or not guilt. The best solution was to have a preliminary vote. The discussion heated up when one of the jury voted ‘not guilty’ against the eleven.
Things get heated between the men discussing the case which leads to juror number 3 saying “ Shut up, you son of a bitch! Let me go, God dammit ! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” This makes it seem that juror three is driven by emotion and not by evidence which makes even more jurors question the verdict of guilty and find reasonable doubt. The next juror who is driven by prejudice and show much bigotry is juror number ten “ I’ll tell you something.
However, Juror #8 is not the only one who is using the father/son relationship to assume whether or not the accused boy deserves the guilty verdict. Juror #3 is clearly shown to be a father. When talking about the way these kids are during that time period, #3 got up and walked around the table, recounting the day when he was a kid. He was very polite and respectful when he was addressing his father which caused him to ask the jurors if they have ever heard a kid call his father “sir” anymore to which Juror #8 commented, saying that “Fathers do not seem to think it is important anymore.” #3 looked down to #8 and asked #8 if he had any children to which he said that he had
A man like this needs to be quote, to be listen to” (Juror 9). In this case juror 9 shows how sympathetic he can be and how convincing he can be. In the film Twelve Angry Men jurors 8 and 9 use cultural background , actions , and experiences witnesses and other jurors to persuade the other jurors to find the boy not guilty. Culture the values, beliefs norms and behaviors of certain groups of people plays a huge role in the film Twelve Angry Men. When juror number 8 tries to defend the accused boy saying that just because he grew up in the slums does not mean he is a murder.
Progressively, the jurors begin trying to compromise on a point that everybody agree because the decision of the jury has to be unanimous. Eventually, the votes of the eleven jurors are converted by convincing speech and peer pressure. Therefore, they made a not-guilty decision. Twelve Angry Men emphasize social psychology theories in the fields of conformity, eye-witness testimony, schemas and heuristics, attitude change (persuation and social influence) and group process (polarization).
Time and again, he uses this fallacy so that other jurors could empathize and connect with the boy. 2) “He is just 18, he couldn't have possibly done such thing. “ “Supposing they're wrong...Could they be wrong? ...They're only people. People make mistakes.
Though juror 3 has been adamant on the guilt of the young boy it is safe to say that this case meant more to him because the relationship with his son is similar to the relationship between the boy and the father. Since his personal vendetta causes him to forcefully accuse the boy of murder it leaves the jury 11-1 in favor of not guilty. Since carefully reviewing the movie it becomes very prevalent that there has not been enough substantial evidence to convict the boy of murder. Furthermore, with the usage of group think all of the men, accept juror 3 are able to put their pride aside and vote what they truly believe the verdict should be, which is not guilty. Though, one of the more pragmatic points in the film happens after juror 3 becomes infuriated after realizing that all of the men are voting not guilty.
When the juror’s expressed outrage, it was because they had heard something that they didn’t approve of therefore, they expressed an emotion that reflected their opinion. The juror’s emotions affected their belief by putting the boy onto the chair. Juror number 3 was convinced that the teenage boy was guilty. This was due to his past experiences within his family; the rage that he had towards his past created a very one-sided belief. Therefore, juror number 3 let his emotions choose the side he would be on.